January 28, 2013

If you want to understand the trouble Republicans are in, one good place to start is with the obsession the right has lately developed with the rising disability rolls. The growing number of Americans receiving disability payments has, for many on the right, become a symbol of our economic and moral decay; we’re becoming a nation of malingerers.

As Jared Bernstein points out, there’s a factual problem here: a large part of the rise in the disability rolls reflects simple demographics, because aging baby boomers are a lot more likely to have real ailments than those same workers did when they were in their 20s and 30s. The Social Security Administration does a formal adjustment for this reality, and as Jared says, it looks like this:

It looks a lot less dramatic, doesn’t it?

And as for the rest of what’s going on, CBO — which also concludes (pdf) that a lot of it is demographics — adds this description of policy changes:

In 1984, lawmakers enacted the Disability Benefits Reform Act, which expanded the ways in which people could qualify for the DI program. That legislation, in addition to reversing several of the cost-containment measures enacted as part of the 1980 Social Security Disability Amendments, shifted the criteria for DI eligibility from a list of specific impairments to a more general consideration of a person’s medical condition and ability to work. The legislation allowed applicants to qualify for benefits on the basis of the combined effect of multiple medical conditions, each of which taken alone might not have met the criteria. It also allowed symptoms of mental illness and pain to be considered in assessing whether a person qualified for admission to the DI program, even in the absence of a clear-cut medical diagnosis.

So yes, there has been some liberalization of the criteria — if you have multiple interacting conditions or mental illness, you may qualify in ways you didn’t before — but that liberalization is pretty reasonable. It’s still quite hard to qualify for DI.

What strikes me, however, isn’t just the way the right is trying to turn a reasonable development into some kind of outrage; it’s the political tone-deafness.

I mean, when Reagan ranted about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, he was inventing a fake problem — but his rant resonated with angry white voters, who understood perfectly well who Reagan was targeting. But Americans on disability as moochers? That isn’t, as far as I can tell, an especially nonwhite group — and it’s a group that is surely as likely to elicit sympathy as disdain. There’s just no way it can serve the kind of political purpose the old welfare-kicking rhetoric used to perform.

The same goes, more broadly, for the whole nation of takers thing. First of all, a lot of the “taking” involves Social Security and Medicare. And even the growth in means-tested programs is largely accounted for by the Earned Income Tax Credit — which requires and rewards work — and the expansion of Medicaid/CHIP to cover more children. Again, not the greatest of political targets.

The point, I think, is that right-wing intellectuals and politicians live in a bubble in which denunciations of those bums on disability and those greedy children getting free health care are greeted with shouts of approval — but now have to deal with a country where the same remarks come across as greedy and heartless (because they are).

And I don’t think this is a problem that can be solved with a slight change in the rhetoric.

January 26, 2013

Soon after President Obama’s second inaugural address, John Boehner said the White House would try “to annihilate the Republican Party” and “shove us into the dustbin of history.”

Actually, the GOP is doing a pretty good job annihilating itself. As Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal put it, Republicans need to “stop being the stupid party.”

The GOP crackup was probably inevitable. Inconsistencies and tensions within the GOP have been growing for years – ever since Ronald Reagan put together the coalition that became the modern Republican Party.

All President Obama has done is finally found ways to exploit these inconsistencies.

Republican libertarians have never got along with social conservatives, who want to impose their own morality on everyone else.

Shrink-the-government fanatics in the GOP have never seen eye-to-eye with deficit hawks, who don’t mind raising taxes as long as the extra revenues help reduce the size of the deficit.

The GOP’s big business and Wall Street wing has never been comfortable with the nativists and racists in the Party who want to exclude immigrants and prevent minorities from getting ahead.

And right-wing populists have never got along with big business and Wall Street, which love government as long as it gives them subsidies, tax benefits, and bailouts.

Ronald Reagan papered over these differences with a happy anti-big-government nationalism. His patriotic imagery inspired the nativists and social conservatives. He gave big business and Wall Street massive military spending. And his anti-government rhetoric delighted the Party’s libertarians and right-wing populists.

But Reagan’s coalition remained fragile. It depended fundamentally on creating a common enemy: communists and terrorists abroad, liberals and people of color at home.

On the surface Reagan’s GOP celebrated Norman Rockwell’s traditional, white middle-class, small-town America. Below the surface it stoked fires of fear and hate of “others” who threatened this idealized portrait.

In his first term Barack Obama seemed the perfect foil: A black man, a big- spending liberal, perhaps (they hissed) not even an American.

Republicans accused him of being insufficiently patriotic. Right-wing TV and radio snarled he secretly wanted to take over America, suspend our rights. Mitch McConnell declared that unseating him was his party’s first priority.

But it didn’t work. The 2012 Republican primaries exposed all the cracks and fissures in the GOP coalition.

The Party offered up a Star Wars barroom of oddball characters, each representing a different faction — Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum. Each rose on the strength of supporters and then promptly fell when the rest of the Party got a good look.

Finally, desperately, the GOP turned to a chameleon — Mitt Romney — who appeared acceptable to every faction because he had no convictions of his own. But Romney couldn’t survive the general election because the public saw him for what he was: synthetic and inauthentic.

The 2012 election exposed something else about the GOP: it’s utter lack of touch with reality, its bizarre incapacity to see and understand what was happening in the country. Think of Karl Rove’s delirium on Fox election night.

All of which has given Obama the perfect opening — perhaps the opening he’d been waiting for all along.

Obama’s focus in his second inaugural — and, by inference, in his second term — on equal opportunity is hardly a radical agenda. But it aggravates all the tensions inside the GOP. And it leaves the GOP without an overriding target to maintain its fragile coalition.

In hammering home the need for the rich to contribute a fair share in order to ensure equal opportunity, and for anyone in America — be they poor, black, gay, immigrant, women, or average working person — to be able to make the most of themselves, Obama advances the founding ideals of America in such way that the Republican Party is incapable of opposing yet also incapable of uniting behind.

History and demographics are on the side of the Democrats, but history and demography have been on the Democrats’ side for decades. What’s new is the Republican crackup — opening the way for a new Democratic coalition of socially-liberal young people, women, minorities, middle-class professionals, and what’s left of the anti-corporate working class.

If Obama remains as clear and combative as he has been since Election Day, his second term may be noted not only for its accomplishment but also for finally unraveling what Reagan put together. In other words, John Boehner’s fear may be well-founded

European ministers didn't even have to take a formal vote because it was obvious that there was sufficient support to move ahead

EU finance ministers were scheduled to vote January 22 on whether to authorize 11 member states to proceed with the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT). As it turned out, the ministers didn’t even have to take a formal vote because it was obvious that there was sufficient support to move ahead.

Members of National Nurses United protest against the Robinhood Tax. (Photograph: National Nurses United)The 11 countries are Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia. It will be possible for other governments to opt in at a later date. And in fact, the Netherlands has expressed interest, but they want to negotiate an exemption for their pension funds.

Next Steps

The next step is for the European Commission to make a proposal for the tax. The proposal will be based on one introduced by the Commission in September 2011 that would apply a 0.1% tax rate on trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01% rate for derivatives trades. As described in the European Council statement released today, the aim of this proposal is “for the financial industry to make a fair contribution to tax revenues, whilst also creating a disincentive for transactions that do not enhance the efficiency of financial markets.”

The proposed tax is based on the “residence principle,” meaning that a financial transaction would be taxed in each case where a resident of one of the participating EU member states was involved even if the transaction was carried out in a country that is not a participant.

The tax proposal will have to be adopted by unanimous agreement of the participating member states. EU Tax Commissioner Algirdas Semeta says it is possible that the tax could enter into force beginning January 1, 2014.

Use of Funds

Although some press reports have said the funds will go towards bailing out European banks, there is no agreement yet on how revenues will be allocated. International campaigners who have been advocating for financial transactions taxes for several years will be redoubling their efforts to demand that revenues to go towards social and environmental purposes.

January 24, 2013

It's so artfully done, and so diabolical, that one can picture secret seminars in subterranean Wall Street meeting rooms, guiding young business recruits in the proven process of taking an extra share of wealth from the middle class. Their presentation might unfold as follows:

1. Boost productivity while keeping worker wages flat.

The trend is unmistakable, and startling: productivity has continued unabated while wages have simply stopped growing. Improved technologies have reduced the need for workers while globalization has introduced the corporate world to cheap labor. In effect, the workers who built a productive America over a half-century stopped getting paid for their efforts.

Paul Krugman suggests that a "sharp increase in monopoly power" is another reason for the disparity. As John D. Rockefeller said, "Competition is a sin." That certainly is the rule of thumb in banking and agriculture and health insurance and cell phones. Yet despite the fact that low-wage jobs are increasingly defining the American labor market, apologists for our meager minimum wage claim an increase will worsen unemployment. So it remains at $7.25. A minimum wage linked to productivity would be $21.00 per hour.

And there's no limit to the earning potential. Hedge fund manager John Paulson conspired with Goldman Sachs in 2007 to bundle sure-to-fail subprime mortgages in attractive packages, with just enough time for Paulson to collect other people's money to bet against his personally designed financial instruments. He made $3.7 billion, enough to pay the salaries of 100,000 new teachers.

3. Keep accumulating wealth created by the financial industry.

Experienced schemers have undoubtedly observed that over the past 100 years the stock market has grown three times faster than the GDP. The richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of such non-home wealth.

The richest 400 taxpayers doubled their income in just seven years while cutting their tax rates nearly in half. U.S. corporations can match that, doubling their profits and cutting their taxes by more than half in under ten years. The 1.3 million individuals in the richest 1% cut their federal tax burden from 34% to 23% in just 25 years.

5. Lend out your excess money to people who can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle.

As stated by Thom Hartmann, "The 'Takers' own vast wealth, and loan it out at interest to everybody from students to governments.." Overall, Americans are burdened with over $11 trillion in consumer debt, including mortgages, student loans, and credit card liabilities.

So we're hanging on by the frazzled thread of debt that indentures us to the rich and makes it harder and harder to fight back against the theft of our middle-class wealth. As we struggle to support ourselves, the super-rich remain on the take, driving us ever closer to the status of most wealth-unequal country in the world.

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

The most important thing to Republicans is deficit reduction. It's the chief thing they talk about. It's their main concern, it's their singular issue. Right? Right.... Then why did they vote to add $77 billion in pork to the so-called 'fiscal cliff' bill? But don't get me wrong - Democrats not only voted for it but were instrumental in adding it to the bill as well. But why were the American people kept in the dark and not told that this bill like a lot of others was all about the pork. It's not that this bill was not discussed at great length by the punditry. Bloviators were bloviating non-stop for months. Pontificators were pontificating full time. Purveyors of bovine excrement were shoveling constantly. But no one saw it coming. Not Dick Gregory of Meet the Press, not Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation, not Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow of msnbc. It's not like pork is a recent phenomena. But it takes sheer gall to add $77 billion in tax break loopholes for the rich to a deficit reduction bill!

The Washington crowd would have us believe that this whole Shakespearian drama came down to the wire, and that, if we went over the cliff, the middle class would be ruined, we'd go back into a recession and the whole global economy would go down the tubes. Each of the central cast of actors took their turn at center stage: John Boehner, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor and a whole host of lesser lights. But none of them mentioned the impending pork that would be added to whatever bill they came up with. But what they came up with at the last minute was a 157 page bill, most of which, while raising tax rates for the richest Americans, was devoted to tax breaks for the rich. Now the punditry and the politicians would have us believe that this was a last minute deal. No it wasn't. How do you write a 157 page bill at the last minute? Most of it was a preconceived pork bill lying in wait to be added on to whatever last minute deal they came up with to prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff.

Wendy Caputo of Riverside was outraged. She wrote a letter to the editor of the East Bay RI which said the following:

"Dozens of tax breaks for business and industry including about $70 million for a cost-recovery program for “motorsports entertainment complexes”; i.e. racetracks! Tax breaks for Hollywood producers who shoot movies and TV shows in the US at a cost of about $430 million over the next 2 years. Legislation allowing US corporations to defer taxes on some income earned from their overseas subsidiaries costing the US Treasury $10.8 billion over this year and next. An agreement to subsidize the domestic production of rum by sending federal tax revenue collected from rum production in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands back to them. A $15 million dollar-a-year tax break to the asparagus industry to compensate for a cheaper product from South America. A tax break for people who buy electric scooters, Segways, and such! And, the list goes on . . ."

It takes a lot of unmitigated gall to add all this pork to a bill that was supposedly all about deficit reduction in the first place. You remember the whole purpose of the fiscal cliff was to force deficit reduction, don't you? The pork was at the heart of the bill and consumed the most paperwork, but no politician ever spoke about it. Oh yeah, it did things like "raise tax rates on the rich while keeping middle class tax rates the same," "keep extended unemployment insurance the same", and "index the alternative minimum tax to inflation." All this stuff could have been written on two pages. That leaves 155 pages of the bill for pork. Such is the nature of compromise in Washington, DC. What this all boils down to is that, while Republicans go apoplectic over the deficit, what they really care about is tax loopholes for the class they represent - the very rich. And Democrats are totally misguided if they think that the pork that they added represents an economic stimulus. The whole American Taxpayer Relief Act was a sham. It gave taxpayers relief on the one hand while giving them a migraine on the other!

A feature of the "tax relief" bill was a $100. million tax giveaway to NASCAR race track owners (you know, Mitt Romney's friends) and other "motorsport entertainment complexes" in the form of "accelerated depreciation." Now most Americans don't have a clue about how accelerated depreciation for businesses raises tax bills for the middle class, but here's how it works. Say you, like NASCAR, build a racetrack. Then you charge people to come and see automobiles race. You make money. Therefore, you have to pay taxes. But wait a minute. First you get to take a tax break because your asset, the race track, has lost value or depreciated, and it depreciates more with each passing year. So you subtract the amount of that depreciation from your tax bill. Now accelerated depreciation lets you subtract this depreciation at a faster rate. Even though your race track has only depreciated a little bit the first year after you built it, you get to deduct a whopping amount from your tax bill. You might not even have to pay any taxes at all.

The rationale for accelerated depreciation is guess what? It creates jobs. Only problem is that that is not true. David Cay Johnston in The Fine Print says:

"...future Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow showed that accelerated depreciation deductions do not increase economic growth. Other studies by leading tax economists, including Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University and Robert Hall of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University ... came to the same conclusion. Most compelling of all, the coauthor of the study that was behind the 1954 accelerated depreciation law, Evsey Domar, acknowledged in 1957 that Solow was right and he was wrong - accelerated depreciation does not produce faster economic growth."

Johnston goes on to say, and I paraphrase, that even that antibusiness socialist, Barack Obama, sponsored 100% immediate writeoffs of all new investment during most of his first term which should have made him a darling of the pro-capitalist business crowd. Meanwhile, as you, the American people, have your taxes taken immediately right out of your paycheck, the big business crowd gets to defer them. This means that you, the 99%, have to pay more taxes to maintain the same level of public services. Of course, the right wingers think you should go without them at all thus keeping the cost of government down while all the while they add tax breaks for themselves to deficit reduction bills.

But to be fair the pork was sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats according to an article in the New York Times.

"The tax break in the new federal law closely resembles the language of racetrack tax bills introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, home to the auto industry and the Michigan International Speedway; Representative Vern Buchanan, Republican of Florida, home of the Daytona International Speedway; and Dean Heller, a Republican senator and former representative from Nevada, home of the Las Vegas Motor Speedway.

"Among the co-sponsors, or chief backers, were Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, home of the Kansas Speedway, and the senators from North Carolina, home base for many race teams and the Nascar industry — Richard M. Burr, a Republican, and Kay Hagan, a Democrat.

"Also supporting the legislation was Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, whose love for the sport earned him the nickname Mr. Nascar. Mr. Kyl, who just retired from Congress, used to volunteer at the Phoenix International Raceway.

"Ms. Stabenow’s Web site includes pictures of her at a Nascar race at the Michigan track in August."

In addition to NASCAR, the pork in the American Tax Relief Bill is helping to fund Goldman Sachs' new headquarters in lower Manhattan and subsidize the very profitable Disney corporation. Nascar, Wall Street and Hollywood came out the big winners. But nobody in the media even mentioned it. Like it was not important. Like we should just accept it without comment. Hey, it's just the cost of doing business. It's "normal." Deficit reduction be damned. Hey, vaunted punditry, why don't you wake up and publicize the pork in each bill before it goes down or is it top secret?

January 19, 2013

Anyone who thinks congressional Republicans will roll over on the debt ceiling or gun control or other pending hot-button issues hasn’t been paying attention.

But the President can use certain tools that come with his office – responsibilities enshrined in the Constitution and in his capacity as the nation’s chief law-enforcer — to achieve some of his objectives.

On the debt ceiling, for example, he might pay the nation’s creditors regardless of any vote on the debt ceiling – based on the the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit directive (in Section 4) that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.”

Or, rather than issue more debt, the President might use a loophole in a law (31 USC, Section 5112) allowing the Treasury to issue commemorative coins – minting a $1 trillion coin and then depositing it with the Fed.

Both gambits would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, but not before they’ve been used to pay the nation’s bills. (It’s doubtful any federal court, including the Supremes, would enjoin a President from protecting the full faith and credit of the United States).

Or consider guns. As Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday, “there are executive orders, executive action that can be taken” that don’t require congressional approval.

The President probably needs new legislation to reinstate a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons, stop the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips, and require background checks on all gun buyers.

But he has wide authority to use gun laws already on the books as the basis for regulations or executive orders strengthening gun enforcement.

There’s ample precedent. After a mass school shooting in Stockton, California, in 1989, George H.W. Bush issued an executive order, pursuant to the 1968 Gun Control Act, that banned imports of certain assault weapons unless used for sporting purposes. Years later, Bill Clinton by executive order banned imports of almost five dozen different assault weapons that had been modified to get through that “sporting purposes” exemption. President Obama could go even further.

To take another example, the National Firearms Act of 1934 gives a president broad powers to oversee gun dealers. By executive order, the President could tighten that oversight.

Under his law-enforcement authority the President could also issue executive orders improving information sharing among state and local law enforcement authorities about illegal gun purchases, tracking gun buyers’ history of mental illness, and maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods.

The Administration has already issued a regulation designed to prevent sales of semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels. It requires stores in states bordering Mexico to notify federal law enforcement officials when someone buys two or more of a particular type of high-caliber, semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. That regulation, too, could be expanded upon.

No doubt such executive orders and regulations would be challenged in the federal courts (the regulation on semi-automatic rifles is now in a federal appeals court that’s expected to rule on its legality within the next few months).

But it’s a fair argument that when the nation is jeopardized – whether in danger of defaulting on its debts or succumbing to mass violence – a president is justified in using his authority to the fullest.

The mere threat of taking such actions – using the President’s executive authority to pay the nation’s bills or broadly interpret gun laws already on the books – could be useful in pending negotiations with congressional Republicans.

They have not shied away from using whatever means available to them to get their way. The President should not be reluctant to play hardball, either

A week before his inaugural, President Obama says he won’t negotiate with Republicans over raising the debt limit.

At an unexpected news conference on Monday he said he won’t trade cuts in government spending in exchange for raising the borrowing limit.

“If the goal is to make sure that we are being responsible about our debt and our deficit - if that’s the conversation we’re having, I’m happy to have that conversation,” Obama said. “What I will not do is to have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people.”

Well and good. But what, exactly, is the President’s strategy when the debt ceiling has to be raised, if the GOP hasn’t relented?

He’s ruled out an end-run around the GOP.

The White House said over the weekend that the President won’t rely on the Fourteenth Amendment, which arguably gives him authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own.

And his Treasury Department has nixed the idea of issuing a $1 trillion platinum coin that could be deposited with the Fed, instantly creating more money to pay the nation’s bills.

In a pinch, the Treasury could issue IOUs to the nation’s creditors — guarantees they’ll be paid eventually. But there’s no indication that’s Obama’s game plan, either.

So it must be that he’s counting on public pressure — especially from the GOP’s patrons on Wall Street and big business — to force Republicans into submission.

That’s probably the reason for the unexpected news conference, coming at least a month before the nation is likely to have difficulty paying its bills.

The timing may be right. President is riding a wave of post-election popularity. Gallup shows him with a 56 percent approval rating, the highest in three years.

By contrast, Republicans are in the pits. John Boehner has a 21% approval and 60% disapproval. And Mitch McConnell’s approval is at 24%. Not even GOP voters seem to like Republican lawmakers in Washington, with 25% approving and 61% disapproving.

And Americans remember the summer of 2011 when the GOP held hostage the debt ceiling, bringing the nation close to a default and resulting in a credit-rating downgrade and financial turmoil that slowed the recovery. The haggling hurt the GOP more than it did Democrats or the President.

But Obama’s strategy depends on there being enough sane voices left in the GOP to influence others. That’s far from clear.

Just moments after the President’s Tuesday news conference, McConnell called on the President to get “serious about spending,” adding that “the debt limit is the perfect time for it.” And Boehner said “the American people do not support raising the debt ceiling without reducing government spending at the same time.”

The 2012 election has shaken the GOP, as have the post-fiscal cliff polls. Yet, as I’ve noted before, the Republican Party may not care what a majority of Americans thinks. The survival of most Republican members of Congress depends on primary victories, not general elections — and their likely primary competitors are more to the right than they are.

January 14, 2013

There are many policies that governments could implement to raise the finances needed to reverse austerity measures, tackle climate change and prevent needless poverty-related deaths. But we cannot rely on governments to change the current world direction - the only hope is a huge groundswell of popular support in favour of global sharing.

Today, governments around the world are implementing programs of austerity that are reversing the social protections that people have fought for over many generations. By dramatically cutting public spending on social welfare and essential services, austerity measures are undermining human rights and threatening to unravel the basic fabric of society and community. But is there really no alternative to these unjust economic policies, as we are being led to believe?

In a world that is already highly unequal, neglecting polices that redistribute income and wealth has resulted in what can only be described as a global emergency. Amidst the many crises we face - from the food, environmental and financial crises to the global systemic crisis - hundreds of millions of people across the world are facing extreme deprivation and dying needlessly from a lack of access to the essentials, whether as a consequence of extreme poverty, climate change or natural disasters. Even in the richest countries, policies of economic austerity are inflicting unnecessary hardship on millions of families, many of whom now struggle to afford basic food or healthcare.

Photo: London Permaculture

As the countless protesters across diverse continents are declaring, it doesn't have to be this way. Although addressing the underlying causes of the world's interrelated crises will necessitate structural reforms on a scale never before attempted by the international community, we don't have to wait for these transformative changes to take place in order to prevent people suffering from extreme hardship and avoidable poverty-related disability.

There is plenty of research available that demonstrates how governments could harness more than enough money to reverse policies of economic austerity, prevent life-threatening deprivation and mitigate the human impacts of climate change. By utilising just the policy options summarised below, governments could mobilise over $2.8 trillion every year to scale up and strengthen the ‘sharing economy' - systems of welfare and redistribution that have been progressively established across the world to protect the poor and vulnerable.

This colossal sum amounts to approximately 4% of global GDP - twice as much as required for securing a basic level of social protection for all the world's poor, according to calculations by the United Nations. It also underlines how the international community could do much more to scale up sharing between nations as well as within them, in order to help poorer countries meet the basic needs of their citizens and strengthen domestic systems of social protection.

Many of these policy measures would be hugely beneficial in their own right by helping to establish a world with less military spending, less corporate welfare, a greener economy, a fairer international trade regime, and more progressive and effective forms of taxation. Achieving these long-standing and widely championed goals would be an enormous step in the right direction for the world as a whole, signalling a triumph for millions of people working towards progressive change, and paving the way for more transformative reforms to the world's economic and political systems that must urgently follow.

10 policies to finance the global sharing economy

1. Tax financial speculation - $650bn

Speculation in financial markets is increasingly disconnected from the ‘real' economy (concerned with actually producing goods and services) and has destabilised economies all over the world. The main beneficiaries of speculation are a minority elite of traders, investment banks, hedge funds and other companies that can reap huge profits from market volatility. A financial transaction tax (FTT) could help regulate markets by disincentivising the most destabilising trading practices. If implemented globally, an FTT could raise as much as $650bn a year for governments to tackle poverty, reverse austerity measures and address climate change.

2. End fossil fuels subsidies - $531bn

The burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor to global warming and is largely responsible for carbon emissions reaching a record high last year. It will be impossible to keep CO2 emissions to safe levels if governments continue to encourage the overuse of ‘dirty energy' through the massive subsidies it provides to the producers and consumers of fossil fuels. Governments could raise up to $531bn a year if all forms of biofuel and fossil fuel subsidies are progressively phased out by 2020. This colossal sum of money is sufficient to secure universal access to energy, leverage a significant investment in renewables on a global scale, and finance programs that can help countries mitigate and adapt to climate change.Photo: tolkien1914

3. Divert military spending - $434.5bn

Military spending by governments worldwide has risen by more than 50% since 2001, reaching over $1.7tn in 2011 - equivalent to around $250 annually for each person in the world. As a first step toward ending armed conflict and war, it is crucial that governments introduce substantial reductions to their military budgets. Diverting only a quarter of current global military expenditure would free up $434.5bn annually that could instead be used to save lives, prevent extreme deprivation and strengthen United Nations peacekeeping efforts.

4. Stop tax avoidance - $349bn

Strengthening tax systems in countries around the world remains the most pragmatic way for nations to share their financial resources more equitably and protect the poor and vulnerable. Tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and multinational corporations means governments often miss out on huge amounts of additional public revenue. Facilitated by a global network of highly secretive tax havens and ‘legitimised' by national and international tax rules, tax avoidance is big business. As a minimum step toward ending all forms of global tax avoidance, clamping down on tax havens and preventing corporate tax abuse could raise more than $349bn each year.

5. Increase international aid - $297.5bn

Official Development Assistance (ODA) is the main way in which the international community currently finances the global sharing economy. But foreign aid is severely compromised by the self-interest of donor countries and dwarfed by the net flow of money from developing countries to rich industrialised nations. Although an end to poverty will require extensive restructuring of the world economy to share wealth and power more equally between and within nations, increasing ODA to 1% of gross national income (GNI) in the short term could raise an additional $297.5bn per year - a sum much more in line with the urgent needs of poorer countries.

6. End support for agribusiness - $187bn

Agricultural subsidies are a foremost example of how governments support an environmentally destructive and socially unjust model of agriculture and trade. Redirecting these perverse subsidies is an urgent priority if the world is serious about addressing the global food crisis, reducing hunger and protecting the environment. Eliminating inappropriate and wasteful subsidies that are geared to supporting wealthy farmers and powerful agri-corporations could raise $187bn each year - money that could instead be used to tackle poverty and increase food security in the Global South. Remaining subsidies should be re-oriented to support small-scale producers and agro-ecological farming practices, in accordance with the principles of food sovereignty.

7. Harness IMF resources - $115.5bn

The powerful influence exerted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) over economic policy decisions made across the world has earned it a deeply controversial reputation. Many civil society groups and millions of citizens throughout the Global South see the IMF and its market-driven policies as a threat to social and economic justice. Nonetheless, the Fund has the ability to raise and redistribute vast quantities of additional finance for poverty eradication and climate finance purposes. Expanding the IMF's Special Drawing Rights facility (SDRs) could raise $100bn annually, and progressively selling off the IMF's substantial gold reserves could raise an additional $15.5bn over a period of 10 years.

8. Tax dirty fuels - $108bn

Campaigners have long argued that the price of using fossil fuels does not accurately reflect the actual cost of its environmental, social or economic impacts. The artificially low price of burning oil, gas and coal has also encouraged overreliance on them, exacerbated climate change and prevented the development of alternative forms of energy. Taxing the carbon emissions from fossil fuels could raise $108bn each year in additional government revenues. The tax would also provide an incentive to use fossil fuels more efficiently, help encourage the transition towards low-carbon energy technology, and raise significdirant funding for international climate finance.

9. Cancel unjust debt - $81bn

The unconditional cancellation of all unjust and unpayable developing country debts is essential to achieve a more equitable distribution of the world's financial resources. Developing countries are indebted to the tune of over $4tr and spend more than $1.4bn every day repaying these debts - 400% more than they receive in aid. These funds should instead be spent on social welfare and public services that many of these countries urgently need. Cancelling illegitimate ‘dictator debts' alone - currently estimated at $735bn - could free up $81bn a year for public spending in developing countries.

10. Protect import tariffs - $63.4bn

Rich nations and global institutions must stop forcing poor countries to adhere to unjust trade rules. Income from taxes placed on imported goods is an important source of government revenue for developing countries, but they are increasingly being forced to reduce these import tariffs as a condition of free trade agreements (FTAs) or in return for financial assistance. If the current round of world trade negotiations is concluded, poor countries could lose $63.4bn from reductions in import tariffs - more than four times what they are estimated to gain from increased trade. In addition, many FTAs currently being negotiated between rich and poor nations will further reduce tariff revenues for governments throughout the Global South.

Total potential revenue of all 10 policies: $2.8 trillion every year.

The policies above highlight the many ways in which governments can mobilise hundreds of billions of dollars without creating more national debts or enacting austerity measures. Furthermore, using this money to reinforce the global sharing economy and prevent needless poverty-related deaths in poor countries could save the lives of around 15 million people every year and enable many millions more to contribute to the social, economic, political and cultural life of their nation. This makes sound economic sense at a time when economies across the world are contracting and unemployment is rising. In an interdependent world where trade and financial relationships span the globe, this massive investment in the sharing economy could stimulate demand, kick-start growth, create employment opportunities and substantially increase government revenues.

Reversing austerity measures across Europe and North America could also have a significant impact on economies by reducing unemployment and increasing the health, wellbeing and disposable income of citizens in these economically advanced regions. Similarly, investing heavily in renewable energy and green infrastructure projects as part of a ‘green new deal' on a national and global scale could create even more jobs, pave the way to a low carbon economy and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Together these measures could help stimulate economic activity and increase government income, helping nations to plug the hole in public finances and reverse the big cuts in government spending. These ‘stimulus policies' are widely regarded as being more effective than the programs of austerity meted out by many indebted governments today, especially in times of recession or exceptionally high deficits. Although a profound transformation of the entire global economic structure is necessary to resolve the deepening financial crisis, in the meantime there is no excuse for undermining the sharing economy through government cutbacks in welfare and essential services.

These proposals may be relatively modest when compared to the scale of the crises confronting humanity, but they will clearly require massive public support if they are to stand a hope of being realised. As we move ever closer to social, economic and environmental tipping points, it is clear that we can no longer rely on governments alone to create the future we want. The responsibility to take a stand falls squarely on the shoulders of ordinary people, not just the usual campaigners and NGOs. But as the widespread mobilisation of people power around the world has begun to demonstrate, a united and informed global public opinion is ultimately stronger than the private interests that obstruct progressive change from taking place.

If public support for all the campaigns and policy priorities highlighted above continues to grow, the possibility of mobilising public opinion on an international scale and transforming governmental policy fast becomes a reality. For this to occur, everyone who seeks a fairer and more peaceful world - especially those who are new to these issues - must add their weight to the global call for sharing and justice.

Rajesh Makwana is the executive director of Share The World's Resources, (STWR), a London-based NGO campaigning for essential resources - such as land, energy, water and the atmosphere - to be shared internationally and sustainably in order to secure basic human needs. He can be contacted at rajesh@stwr.org

Adam Parsons is the editor at Share The World's Resources, (STWR) a London-based NGO campaigning for essential resources - such as land, energy, water and the atmosphere - to be shared internationally and sustainably in order to secure basic human needs. He can be contacted at adam(at)stwr.org.

Anyone who thinks congressional Republicans will roll over on the debt ceiling or gun control or other pending hot-button issues hasn’t been paying attention.

But the President can use certain tools that come with his office – responsibilities enshrined in the Constitution and in his capacity as the nation’s chief law-enforcer — to achieve some of his objectives.

On the debt ceiling, for example, he might pay the nation’s creditors regardless of any vote on the debt ceiling – based on the the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit directive (in Section 4) that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.”

Or, rather than issue more debt, the President might use a loophole in a law (31 USC, Section 5112) allowing the Treasury to issue commemorative coins – minting a $1 trillion coin and then depositing it with the Fed.

Both gambits would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, but not before they’ve been used to pay the nation’s bills. (It’s doubtful any federal court, including the Supremes, would enjoin a President from protecting the full faith and credit of the United States).

Or consider guns. As Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday, “there are executive orders, executive action that can be taken” that don’t require congressional approval.

The President probably needs new legislation to reinstate a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons, stop the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips, and require background checks on all gun buyers.

But he has wide authority to use gun laws already on the books as the basis for regulations or executive orders strengthening gun enforcement.

There’s ample precedent. After a mass school shooting in Stockton, California, in 1989, George H.W. Bush issued an executive order, pursuant to the 1968 Gun Control Act, that banned imports of certain assault weapons unless used for sporting purposes. Years later, Bill Clinton by executive order banned imports of almost five dozen different assault weapons that had been modified to get through that “sporting purposes” exemption. President Obama could go even further.

To take another example, the National Firearms Act of 1934 gives a president broad powers to oversee gun dealers. By executive order, the President could tighten that oversight.

Under his law-enforcement authority the President could also issue executive orders improving information sharing among state and local law enforcement authorities about illegal gun purchases, tracking gun buyers’ history of mental illness, and maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods.

The Administration has already issued a regulation designed to prevent sales of semi-automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels. It requires stores in states bordering Mexico to notify federal law enforcement officials when someone buys two or more of a particular type of high-caliber, semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. That regulation, too, could be expanded upon.

No doubt such executive orders and regulations would be challenged in the federal courts (the regulation on semi-automatic rifles is now in a federal appeals court that’s expected to rule on its legality within the next few months).

But it’s a fair argument that when the nation is jeopardized – whether in danger of defaulting on its debts or succumbing to mass violence – a president is justified in using his authority to the fullest.

The mere threat of taking such actions – using the President’s executive authority to pay the nation’s bills or broadly interpret gun laws already on the books – could be useful in pending negotiations with congressional Republicans.

They have not shied away from using whatever means available to them to get their way. The President should not be reluctant to play hardball, either

The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.2 degrees above normal and a full degree higher than the previous warmest year recorded -- 1998 -- NOAA said in a recent report. All 48 states in the contiguous U.S. had above-average annual temperatures last year, including 19 that broke annual records, from Connecticut through Utah.

It was also a historic year for "extreme" weather, scientists with the federal agency said. With 11 disasters that surpassed $1 billion in losses, including Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Isaac, and tornadoes across the Great Plains, Texas, and the Southeast and Ohio Valley, NOAA said 2012 was second only to 1998 in the agency's "extreme" weather index. However, the dollar costs may well indeed pass the 1998 level because of the severity of the events.

The average temperature for the US was 3.2 degrees hotter than the 20th century average. Nineteen states — including Texas, New York, Ohio and Oklahoma — had their highest annual average temperatures on record; 26 others had years that ranked in the top-10 hottest ever.

Every state was affected from coast to coast. In the west it was one of the worst wildfire seasons ever. Colorado had the most expensive fire in state history with over 650 homes destroyed. New Mexico's largest wildfire on record burned more than a quarter million acres.

In March tornadoes in Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky left 42 people dead. In August Hurricane Isaac came ashore near the mouth of the Mississippi leaving 9 dead and 4,700 homes damaged or destroyed. In October SuperStorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the New York and New Jersey coastlines leaving 131 people killed, 650,000 homes damaged or destroyed and over 8 million without power, some for weeks at a time.

The devastating drought continues into 2013 covering 61% of the continental US. The average precipitation total was 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average — good for the 15th driest year on record. Rainfall in Texas is more than 16 inches below normal.

Wild fires continue to rage across Australia and temperatures have become so hot the country's Bureau of Meteorology was forced to add a new color—deep purple—to show areas that have exceeded all-time heat records. Previously the Bureau's heat index was capped at 118.4°F, but now recorded temperatures of over 122°F have pushed the limit of the scale to an unheard of 129°F.

January 10, 2013

In answer to the question, do European nations have a similar U.S. 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms including an individual and collective right ? The summary answer is NO.

However, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which predates our Bill of Rights by 100 years, codified an ancient self-protection right with the words, “ … subjects who are Protestants may have arms for their defensesuitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” This gave birth to the English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but the vague wording is a far cry from the absolute wording of our 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to thesecurity of a free state, the right of the people to keepand beararms, shallnot be infringed.”

In Britain, the possession of most types of arms are strictly controlled for the common good. Criminals, children, and the mentally ill are not allowed to be armed. The UK Firearms Act of 1968 sets rigid requirements for a firearms certificate. A concept of compulsory security for rifles and shotguns is in effect and extends to shotguns. Centre-fire self-loading and pump action rifles are banned as well as automatic weapons. Gun rights and strict rules have culturally evolved to a point where today England has one of the lowest gun ownership levels and gun homicide rates in the world. Further, this has not resulted in high non-gun homicides or violent crime culture as purist anti-gun control believers like to say.

This low gun access approach works for England but probably would never work for the U.S. Our nation is totally saturated in a gun culture – including quasi machine guns that can shoot 30-50-100 bullets in seconds. We are a country where an individual can go into a gun show and walk out with a semi-automatic weapon and no background check … where insane people have easy access to military style weapons! Lanza used three of four semi-automatic weapons belonging to his mother, all easily accessible. This potential from ever more efficiently designed arms to murder many people rapidly makes the case for re-defining U.S. gun law all the more urgent.

Switzerland also has no constitutional guarantee of an individual’s right to bear arms. The national legislature could ban gun ownership anytime. But today Switzerland is a heavily armed nation. This reflects a centuries old Swiss culture to have arms to resist possible invaders or despotic tyrants, like Hitler in WWII. The country’s high gun ownership level comes with a very low gun homicide rate vs. the U.S. All males at 18 join the military and can take their military assault weapon home with them when they leave. Thus, up to 500,000 military assault weapons are estimated to be in Swiss households today. These weapons must be locked up and ammunition is kept in central arsenals. The government supplies bullets for shooting festivals. Canton police may issue special permits for civilians to own assault rifles – typically as licensed collectors—and such weapons may not be fired in full automatic mode. The country hosts some of the largest rifle shooting events in the world. While gun ownership laws have tightened upon handguns and non-military weapons, it is still reasonably easy to get a hand gun. But, it is illegal to carry guns in public.

As stated earlier, social attitudes and discipline concerning guns play a major role in Europe. The Swiss and Norwegian easier gun access cultures illustrate that the ability to possess arms is not necessarily a direct causal link to a greater gun homicide or crime rate. This is true in an opposite way for England where a much more difficult access to guns does not ipso facto translate into much higher levels of non-gun homicides or crime rates as some pro-gun enthusiasts suggest.

Spain enforces strict controls over firearms. The constitution clearly states: “The State shall have exclusive competence over … the regimefor theproduction, trading, holding, and use of weapons.” In Finland, citizens must have a valid reason for a gun license such as hunting, recreation, or gun exhibitions. An amendment to the 1997 Scotland Firearms Act banned private possession of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting purposes. Small bore rifles are not limited. Many types of rifles, shotguns, and black powder pistols and long arms may be privately owned. Luxembourg has a complete ban on guns. In the Netherlands, assault rifles, silencers, and short-barreled shotguns as well as any kind of high capacity magazine are banned for civilian possession unless authorized by the Minister of Justice.

Our neighbor, Canada, has no constitutional right to bear arms. Gun ownership is strictly regulated and certain gun models are prohibited by the Firearms Act. Canada’s crime rate is lower than that of the U.S.

Conclusion

Unlike America, the European individual right to bear and keep arms is NOT entrenched in constitutional law. The U.S. gun culture inherited from England and Switzerland of protecting ourselves against tyrannical government was expanded on by Thomas Jefferson with his remarks:

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed may be attached with greater confidence than the armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson, Common Place Book , 1774-1776 (quoting from “On Crimes and Punishment” by criminologist Cesare Beccaria 1764).

It should not be surprising that the right to bear arms has remained closely and jealously guarded in America. Our constitution has left the 50 states free to regulate the private possession of weapons in whatever way deemed appropriate to them. Today 43 states have some kind of right to bear arms provisions which are far more relevant to proposed state and local gun controls than the 2nd Amendment. However, in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, potentially weakening state and local gun control laws.

The fundamental purposes of the 2nd Amendment have come to represent: (a) the individual right to protect oneself against other individuals and (b) the collective right to protect oneself against a tyrannical government. Both U.S. 2nd Amendment protections are seen to be rather anachronistic by European standards for a number of reasons. BUT, these rights are steadfast, virtual “emotional” realities for many Americans. In Europe, having guns – except for hunting and shooting festivals and except for well-controlled Swiss assault weapons as a retired civilian-militia protection against invaders – is simply NOT built into the psyche of Europeans who in general have little interest in nor see the necessity of owning guns as a defense against criminals or their governments.

The challenge for America is where to draw the line between the rightful, normal gun means to defend oneself as opposed to the use of modern multi-murderous weaponry and magazines. U.S. anti-gun regulation paranoia abounds in the thought than any restriction is the first step to the total banning of guns, ultimately making citizens more unsafe against criminals who will never give up guns. This is further supported by NRA’s false claim that there is no statistical evidence the 1994-2004 semi-automatic assault gun ban had a measureable effect in reducing violent wide-scale shootings.

Complete gun control in America is never going to happen given the 2nd Amendment and fact there are too many guns already out there. We have created a climate of gun protection and resort to gun violence by criminals and non-criminals (e.g., crimes of passion) that is deeply cultural and self-perpetuating… that is leap years worse and ingrained than in Europe and Canada by any statistical measure. (see Tables 1and 2, “Gun & Non-Gun Homicides in US and Europe”)

The Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, Columbine mass killings and now the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre bring up once again the fundamental differences in firearm levels, semi-automatic and automatic weaponry, gun-related and non-gun related homicides in the U.S. vs. Europe. America is a nation of guns. Our gun laws facilitate this as well as the indiscriminate sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons of myriad styles ... thanks to a pro-gun activist lobbying culture that never slows down.

It’s time to get serious on prohibiting gun acquisition or possession by people with a history of mental illness, by high risk groups such as felons, drug addicts or alcoholics. It’s time to get serious on limiting gun sales to one shot at a time pistols and rifles with limited cartridge capacities. It’s time to get serious on conducting thorough criminal and mental health background checks and publicized waiting periods for high risk people and first time buyers seeking gun permits.

The fact that our violent crime is so deadly has everything to do with guns. Unlike Europe, America’s 2nd Amendment has given support to a culture where the gun is designed, worshiped, and elevated to a sacred, efficient killing status. While our nation has had a somewhat constant, but very high,level of homicide violence, gun proliferation has enabled a greater portion of that violence to become deadlyin sharp contrast to Europe. Pro-gun advocates like to say that violent crime is far higher in Europe as a result of restrictive gun controls. Nothing could be further from the truth.

How have we come this far?

It started in the 18th century when the Swiss “citizens ’militia” model was cited in support of passage of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution on the rights of citizens to keep and bear firearms. Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has allowed and even required its citizens to arm as a defense against Europe’s despots. For centuries a well-armed Swiss populace has kept its independence by defeating the mighty armies of European monarchs. The Swiss learned early that tyrannical invading foreign forces kill more people than do criminals or the deranged.

In 1791, U.S. Representative Andrew Jackson acknowledged the Swiss influence on the right to bear arms when he said: “The inhabitants of Switzerlandemancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia which finallydelivered them from the tyranny of the lords.” Similarly, the right to bear arms as part of a “well regulated militia” formed the original basis for our 2nd Amendment. General George Wingate, founder of the NRA, heaped praise on the Swiss militia model as being the ideal model for securing thecountry’s security.

However, under the banner of linking “freedom” to personal armed “readiness,” the NRA has long adopted the position that efforts to restrict gun sales – whether semi-automatics, AR-15s or AK-47s , machine guns, or hunting rifles – are an assault on our constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment. In truth, the 2nd Amendment does NOT sanction the right to semi-automatic and automatic individual firearms. Further, the NRA propagates that inadequate gun control laws have nothing to do with the epidemic of gun-related killings. “People kill, notguns.” The way to make people safer is MORE Semi-Automatic Guns and better background control of society’s psychiatrically disabled.

Today, Switzerland has many guns but few murders … thanks to strict gun control laws and a popular recreational shooting culture. Swiss households use firearms mainly as a peaceful, sport-shooting family occupation at contest-festivals where eating, drinking, socializing abound. Shooting-range festivals have come to be recognized as a wholesome community activity. Well- enforced rules apply to permits, safety training, gun/ammunition handling discipline. Ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. Males aged 20 to 42 must keep their rifles and pistols at home. This culture fosters gun sanity. Over time, these social-attitudes have helped to keep Swiss total gun and non-gun homicide far below those of the U.S.!

England has a much stricter gun control culture with relatively few guns in households. You couldn’t get a more murder free society than England (or Japan) which has banned practically all guns. In contrast, America has as many firearms as there are people – a situation made irreversibly dangerous knowing that guns have at least a 100-year life cycle. While the original primary motivation for an armed populace under the 2nd Amendment was to defend against tyrants and invaders, America’s last 60 year accelerating gun ownership dynamic is now perceived and promoted as an absolute necessity to defend ourselves against outrageous, multiple crime subcultures and misfits.

The following data summarizes a remarkable story about fundamentally different gun cultural and social attitudes, resort to violence and how these relate to gun availability and controls.

_________________________________________________________________

TABLE 1: % of Homicides by Guns; Gun Homicide Rate Per 100,000 People; Guns Per 100 People in the U.S. and Selected EU Countries – 2010

An obvious FALACY propagated by U.S. pro-gun spokesmen and their associations is that European total homicides and crime under Gun Controls regime are much HIGHER than U.S. homicides. The same people claim European homicides are even HIGHER than they were BEFORE Gun Controls – all part of the standard gun lobby LIE that less guns mean more non-gun murders and violence using other methods … thus higher crime rates. What a fairy tale this is!

Tables 1 exposes this LIE byshowing that much higher gun possession leads to far higher homicides with guns, almost 70% of all U.S. homicides vs. 28% in Europe. Contrary to propaganda by NRA universal gun advocates, European absolutenumbers of total homicides for any country – intentional homicides including gun homicides – are very TINY.

Table 2 shows total British intentional homicides in 2010 were 638 of which 58 were gun murders. England’s total population is a fifth of the U.S. population. When adjusted for this, British total murders are equivalent to 3090 and 290 gun murders. Thus, versus England, America’s gun homicides are 34 times higher and intentional homicides are 4.8 times higher on an equivalent basis.

EU-17 country average homicide data in Table 2 was adjusted for population differences. In 2010, EU-17 total population is 412 million or average per country of 24.2 million vs. a U.S. population of 311 million or 13 times higher. Thus, U.S. intentionalhomicides are of 12,960 are 4.8 times higher and gun homicides of 9,960 are astronomically 11 timeshigher than equivalent EU-17 levels 2,702 and 884, respectively . One starts to feel we are so SATURATED with guns of all types and power and the MONEY that comes from it (like from drugs) that we may have well reached a point of no return.

FBI experience shows that guns are at least 20 times more likely to be used in anon-fatal crime than in a non-fatal defense. There is no proof that guns are used to kill more in self-defense than in a commission of a crime. A fear of getting shot back at will deter most murderers. There´s some truth here. BUT, the attacker has the initiative, gun power, and tactical advantage over defenders … surprise, planning, initiative. Still, given the deep gun culture and high robbery/assault crime in America, it´s true that overly restrictive handgun controls rob potential victims (e.g., households) of the most effective means of defending themselves against would-be attackers.

Some argue gun banning causes people to switch to other murder weapons (knives, clubs, poison, illegal guns) which are dangerous but in reality fortunately not as efficiently deadly as guns. The intentional homicide rate (see Table 2) provides a meaningful comparison of total homicides including gun homicides and homicidesby other methods. Intentional homicide is “unlawful death purposefully inflictedon a person byanother person.” Excluded are deaths from war, accidents, suicide, manslaughter, terrorist acts, etc.

Although 70% of U.S. intentional homicides are from GUNS compared to 28%for EU countries, EU-17 absolute numbers of intentional homicides and gun homicides are still substantially lower on an equivalent basis. Obviously, European social and cultural factors play a major role along with much more restrictive, broadly accepted gun controls. In fact, England's strict gun controls led to record low gun-homicides in 2011 and to its lowest intentional homicide level ever .

The correlation of gun availability and violence is an unending chicken and egg debate. Is the U.S. dilemma of extreme levels of violent crime due mostly to easy gun availability and an exceptionally high ownership level or to other intransigent societal factors? For example, England and Norway had achieved low gun-homicide rates even prior to having strict gun controls. Clearly, many confounding societal mechanisms – mental illness, uncensored violent TV films and video games, racial divides, alcohol/drug abuse, self-destruction, income inequality, jealousy, anger, physical abuse, youth gangs in urban cities – all are contributing root causes of gun injuries and homicide rates … much more so in America than in Europe.

Switzerland’s low gun homicide rate seems a contradiction upon first glance. Here’s a country with one of the highest gun ownership levels in Europe that also has a relatively low gun homicide rate! Same applies to Norway. In contrast, England has an exceptionally low gun ownership levels and gun homicide rates. The Swiss, Norwegian and even Canadian firearms experience refutes the belief that very low gun-homicide rates are due to strict gun controls on ownership levels … while British and overall other EU country experience confirms that belief.

SOME WHY ANSWERS ON WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE

WHY does America’s weakly regulated gun culture vs. that in Europe correlate to out-of-sight gun-homicide rates compared to Europe? One WHY answer is the many levels of U.S. criminality compared to England, Switzerland, Norway, and other EU countries … illustrated by the number of U.S. people in prison per 100,000 population of +-750 vs. +- 100 in the EU! (see European Institute for Crime Prevention & Control, “International Statistics on Crime and Justice,” 2010).

Our sub-cultures of violent and less violent crime justify for many Americans the constitutional argument of self-defense, thus allowing high-cartridge capacity semi-automatic firearms of all sorts to roll off producers’ production lines. We are at a crossroads … where it’s not only the high gun ownership level that contributes to high homicide rates but also the high level of crime and military-style killings by the emotionally unbalanced (as occurred in Newtown) that motivate more people to acquire guns for self-defense.

“Since there are so many guns, we need more guns,´´ This NRAself-fulfilling thinkingonly opens up more opportunities for homicidal maniacs to go on indiscriminate shooting sprees … killing children, adolescents, adults. In the end, what it all seems to come down to is that we are by nature a violent nation … and have always been so. Studies by the National Institute of Justice conclude that greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does NOT appear to affect the general U.S. violence level. In other words, the fact the U.S. is a violent society does not have so much to do with guns. The fact that our violent crime is so DEADLY has much to do with guns … e.g., resort to AR-15s!

Research I’ve examined makes a case that homicides are tied to the willingness and ability to resort to violence as an attacker or defender, not just to the mere existence of firearms. Studies show that our already horrendously high U.S. total gun homicide rates would be even higher it weren’t for right-to-concealed-carry state laws allowing individuals properly licensed to carry firearms for protection against crime. In right-to-carry states, studies reveal that violent crime rates compared to other states are +-25% lower, murder rates 50% lower, and robbery rates 50% lower.

Control of guns to reduce our tendency to violence remains critical. But complex social factors already noted cannot be brushed aside as they are also a powerful cause of violence. Why does Switzerland or Norway, for example, have such low absolute levels of violent crime and gun-homicides despite being among the most armed household nations in the world? Solving our violencedilemma lies in the social, cultural, psychological determinants of violence as much as it does in the widespread ownership of guns.The enemy is US and the battlefield is mostly in the urban areas and along racial divides.

The hunter world is clearly not where the gun problem and violence is. Hunters do not use semi-automatic assault weapons. Over many years hunting in the wild woods of northern Maine, I used a 30-30 lever-action rifle with less than six shells in the chamber. My father, as a State Police Officer, taught me well how to use a rifle safely and with respect.

Another WHY answer most people sense is that America has gone nuts producing and selling semi-automatic pistols and rifles that release dozens of bullets in seconds. Military-style assault weapons are really great for our soldiers in Afghanistan … but insane as everyday sold household defense products for the general public. Here’s where guns are indeed the major precipitator of aculture of violence. I can’t believe that General Wingate, founder of the NRA, had in mind a population armed with such deadly automatic big-cartridge weaponry that can be purchased almost at will by the teenager, the novice, the mentally and emotionally unstable. As pointed out,when guns are used they are almost always used for murder … this particularly applies to automatic weapons.

Another WHY answer explaining Europe’s very low intentional homicide, gun homicide, and crime rates is that guns are generally viewed here as anathema after so many centuries of human killing. That is whyEuropean countries do not see ownership of firearms as aconstitutional right … as embraced in our 2nd Amendment. In Europe, one hears little of the U.S. pro-gun facile arguments that `gun control disarms law-abiding citizens.´ Controls are in place and enforced to limit the availability of firearms manufactured or obtained illegally. Strict selling, permit, and safety training regulations are constantly being improved. England and Switzerland are two of the safest places to be although each has an entirely different approach to gun control.

One researcher of Europe’s very low gun homicides and violence summed it all up pretty well:

“The bottom line is one of social attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue though armed heavily like Switzerland or lightly like England and other European countries generally do not experience massacres or high crime rates. Switzerland and Norway fit the mold. The U.S. does not.” (Note: even Norway had its first mass killer of young people last year).

As H. Rap Brown declared in the 1960s, “Violence is as American as apple pie.”

TABLEs 1 and 2 also show huge homicide and violence differences between U.S. and our neighbor, Canada. Canada has plenty of guns largely used for hunting. But U.S. firearm homicide levels at 10,000 a year or a 3.2 homicide rate per 100,000 people is at least 5 times higher equivalently than Canada’s +-200 firearm homicides a year for a 0.5 homicide rate. The 300 million U.S. guns in private hands vs. 7 million in Canada equates to 5 guns per 6 Americans vs. 1 gun per 6 Canadians. It’s clear again that European style social and cultural factors plus strict gun controls play a BIG role in discouraging crime and violence in Canada. We could learn a lot from our next door neighbor.

Another WHY answer is how the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment has evolved and changed. The 2nd Amendment is one long sentence with some key phrases that are a lawyer´s hell or paradise … depending on which side he orshe is on. It says:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

First came a legal challenge in Aymette v. State (1840) where the court held that, “citizens have an unqualified right to keep and bear arms.”The court held this right is not just for those individuals who are members of the militia.

Then came the vague, poorly arrived and seeming contradictory decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939) where the court held that the 2nd Amendment “protects theright to bear arms only if the arms in question are those that would be useful aspart of a civilian militia.”

Finally, Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the 2nd Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnectedwith service in the militia.”

Then came a landmark case McDonald v. Chicago (2010) where the Supreme Court held the right to “keep and bear arms” under the 2nd Amendment applies also to the states. The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling was vague on the scope of gun rights in regard to states.

Over time under the 2nd Amendment, the right has come to be recognized that individuals may possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes – but certainly not an aggressive right to inflict harm on others. But as one constitutional expert has said:

"The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant any right to keep and bear arms (writer's edit: certainly NOT automatic military assault weapons). Furthermore, the rest of The Bill of Rights does not describe any right to do so. These rights are thought of as natural rights or God-given rights. In the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is just a reminder to the government they should not try to stop people from having this right."

Little wonder the NRA and other pro-gun lobbying groups tenaciously support the 2nd Amendment on the basis that guns are the best deterrent of crime against individuals … under their facile philosophy: “As guns increase, we aresafer. As guns decrease, there are more murders.”

So, argues the NRApresident, "arm the school teachers and guards!" Of course maniac killer(s) can always go for these people first with the advantage of planning, surprise, and initiative.

I hope this article effectively argues the utter falsehood and incredibly dangerous social risk implications of this kind of thinking.

January 09, 2013

In an article entitled "Canada's Organic Nightmare" put out by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, authors Mischa Popoff and Patrick Moore contend that many foods labeled as USDA organic may not actually be up to that standard because there is a lack of field testing in Canada, and, furthermore, free trade agreements allow the importation of such foods into the US. There are also "organic equivalency" agreements with other countries that allow imported organic food to be considered as equivalent to that grown in Canada. Popoff and Moore contend that organic crops and livestock are not tested in Canada before they are certified thus making certification essentially meaningless. Inspections consist of checking out the records at organic farms to see if the paperwork is in order, but the actual products are not tested making it more likely that the records could be falsified.

US standards for organic certification do call for field testing of crops and livestock to make sure that they do not exceed well-defined limits of pesticides and herbicides. On both sides of the border GMOs are prohibited in order to qualify for the organic label. While the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) goes to great lengths to make sure that regular supermarket non-organic food is safe and conforms to all labelling claims, pulling food from store shelves and inspecting it before it leaves the farm, organic foods are not so rigorously tested. Mischoff and Popoff claim that the lack of organic food field testing is the result of lobbying efforts by the global environmental movement, but perhaps corporate farmers wishing to enter the lucrative organic market are the real culprits here. They make the point that regular supermarket food should not be criticised as containing undesirable chemicals if organic foods have to rely, more or less, on farmers' vouching for the purity of their products.

I'm not so sure that this logic holds. If Canadian organic products (which have been found to contain herbicides and pesticides) cannot be completely trusted, it does not follow that people should trust supermarket foods not to cause harm. What should happen is that Canadians should demand rigorous field testing of their organic products just as they test other products in the food chain to ensure that Canadians (and citizens of other countries they export to) are getting certifiable organic products. The US should demand the same before they accept imported Canadian products and give them the USDA organic label.

According to the CFIA’s definition of organic foods, there is no mention of safety, purity, nutrition or sustainability criteria that are all readily and inexpensively verifiable through basic lab testing. Instead, "organic product" in Canada is legally defined as product “that has been certified as organic.” According to the CFIA's own regulations, organic food can only be decertified if it's pesticide level does not even meet the limits imposed for non-organic foods. The authors contend that Canada will become a backdoor for the importation of non-organic food under the organic label since large corporations realize that there is a lot of money to be made in this high end market, and there is even more money to be made if organic standards are allowed to be debauched.

Why does Canada allow such haphazard and potentially dangerous practices to continue? The authors claim that organic farmers want organic certification so they can claim their foods are organic and, therefore, charge more for their products without having the scientific scrutiny that would actually prove that their products truly meet organic standards. And there is money involved since the private CFIA certifiers are paid by the farmers themselves as they are in the US. So the farmers get what they want - lax standards - and the CFIA certifiers get what they want - a lucrative profession. There likely is collusion between the two entities amounting quite possibly to the level of fraud.

The organic industry in Canada is a $2 billion a year industry. It is sufficiently mature that it could support a better testing standard which would not be prohibitively expensive. The Canadian standard continues to put more emphasis on bureaucratic paperwork than on scientific analysis and this is the way the big players in the organic industry want it. They can reliably fill out the paperwork at little cost to themselves. Growing truly organic food products would not only be an inconvenience to them but might possibly detract from the bottom line. This is a problem not only in Canada but also in the US where big corporations entering the organic industry seek to lower organic standards in order to cut costs.

Under the same lax regulations Canada doles out the "certifiably organic" label to other countries for use on their imports into Canada. So Canadians are faced with the prospect of consuming foods that originated in other countries having the Canadian organic label and consuming them as if they were grown in Canada. This back door into Canada also permits these products to be reimported into the US as if they were Canadian certifiable organic products.

"This article covers a report that is an untruthful and indefensible indictment of Canada’s organic farmers and business people, who take great pride in providing consumers with a complete seed-to-fork system premised on integrity, traceability and transparency.

Canada’s organic food system must meet all food safety and regulatory requirements, including random testing for chemical residue. Testing is, and always has been, one of the many enforcement and inspection mechanisms available during surprise spot-checks or when an inspector determines that testing is merited. Organic farmers and processors undergo mandatory annual third-party audits and site inspections.

"The authors of the Frontier Centre report are well-established opponents of organic, vocal in their support of GMOs, who have produced a heavily biased document. We are shocked by the media attention this has received, which is obviously intended to generate controversy where none exists.

"Organic products have been proven through numerous peer-reviewed studies to contain significantly less pesticides and pesticide residues, in an environment already contaminated from years of toxic pollution. Organic farmers and businesses are working hard to reverse this trend and to create an alternative system to conventional agriculture. GMOs, artificial preservatives and colouring are not allowed in organic production."

However, they don't claim that regular field testing is required, but is at the discretion of the certifier. Their statement that organic products have proven to contain "significantly less pesticides" suggests that they still might not be up to organic standards, just that they have less pesticides than regular supermarket foods. They also suggest that, while they are doing the best they can, the environment has been "already contaminated from years of toxic pollution." However, this seems like more of an excuse or a rationale for not meeting organic standards. It's an organic farmer's and certifier's responsibilty to ensure that foods labeled organic in fact are up to organic standards not just that the farmer has tried hard to meet those standards.

In addition to testing for the prescence of pesticides and herbicides organic products should be tested for the prescence of pathogens which would crop up if manure, for example, were to be improperly composted. This is not even on the organic industry's radar yet and explains why even some products labeled "organic" in the US have contained e coli and other pathogens and have caused health problems among consumers.

Suffice it to say that standards for organic foods are mind bogglingly lax, especially in Canada. Since Canada has a free trade agreement with the US for the importation of organic foods, these foods from Canada and imports into Canada from other countries can wind up on US store shelves labeled organic. While consumers pay a premium for organic foods, are they really getting what they pay for? God only knows. Standards need to be upgraded in both Canada and the US. The incentive for collusion between farmers and certifiers needs to be eliminated, and field testing needs to be rigorously enforced or, in the case of Canada, instituted.

January 08, 2013

Three trillion dollars a year. That's how much the wealthiest Americans avoid through the system of subsidies and schemes and sweet deals that deprive middle-class workers of their earned benefits. That's three times more than the deficit. That's enough for a full-time job for every middle-class household in America. Here are the distressing details:Protesters gathered in the Minnesota state capitol rotunda in April of 2010. (Fight Back! News/Kim DeFranco)

1. Tax Expenditures: $1.25 trillion

These subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes are estimated to be worth 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion. They largely benefit the richest taxpayers. Business subsidies bring the total to $1.25 trillion.

According to the IRS, 17 percent of taxes owed were not paid in 2006, leaving an underpayment of $450 billion. The largest share of that came from underreporting of income.

3. Tax Havens: up to $250 billion

(a) It's estimated that between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed.(b) 40% of the world's richest individuals are Americans. That's $8 to $12 trillion of the total.(c) The historical annual stock market return is 6%. That's a return of $480 to $720 billion.(d) The 20% to 35% tax loss amounts to a minimum of $96 billion, a maximum of $252 billion.

4. Corporate Taxes: $250 billion

For over 20 years, from 1987 to 2008, corporations paid an average of 22.5% in federal taxes. Since the recession, this has dropped to 10% -- even though their profits have doubled in less than ten years. The missing 12.5% on $2 trillion in profits amounts to $250 billion a year.

5. Financial Transaction Tax (FTT): $500 billion

The absence of an FTT constitutes tax avoidance. Not a penny of sales tax is paid on U.S. financial transactions, which have been estimated at about three quadrillion dollars annually, or three thousand times the deficit. No sales tax is paid despite the high-risk nature of "flash trading" that can lose entire pension funds in a few seconds.

This extremely regressive tax costs the richest Americans only a small fraction of what everyone else pays. If the 12.4% tax (half employer, half employee) were assessed on the full $3.84 trillion claimed by the richest 10% in 2006 (instead of on $1.43 trillion: $110,000 times 13 million payees), an additional $300 billion in revenue would have been realized.

7. Estate Tax: $100 billion

A repeal of the estate tax, which is designed to impact only the tiny percentage of Americans with multi-million dollar estates that have never been taxed, would cost the nation about $100 billion per year.

Conclusion

The total surpasses $3 trillion. The figures may be on the high end, and there may be some overlap, and wealthy Americans may argue that much of it is legal. But the system of loopholes and deductions and exclusions is a statement by the rich that they don't have to pay for their lopsided share of benefits, and that middle-income Americans should give up their own earned benefits to pay the country's bills.

And if tax avoidance is legal it's because the people with money have redefined 'legal.'

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

Calls for a new economic model, ethical regulations for markets

Pope Benedict XVI from the window of his studio overlooking St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013. The Pope slammed capitalism and economic inequality in his annual message of peace. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)Pope Benedict XVI said in his New Year’s peace message today that the world was under threat from unbridled capitalism.

The pope said "hotbeds of tension and confrontation caused by the growing inequality between rich and poor and the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mentality also expressed by unregulated financial capitalism."

The 85-year-old Catholic Church leader spoke at a New Year's Day Mass in the Vatican, then greeted a crowd of tens of thousands outside St Peter's Basilica. The Catholic Church marks its World Day of Peace on New Year's Day with events around the world.

The pope said economic models that seek maximum profit and consumption and encourage competition at all costs had failed to look after the basic needs of manyThousands of peace marchers carrying rainbow banners released balloons in cold St Peter’s Square as the pope spoke.

A longer version of the Pope's annual message was sent to heads of state, government and non-governmental organizations on December 14th.

Reuters reports that in that message "the Pope called for a new economic model and ethical regulations for markets, saying the global financial crisis was proof that capitalism does not protect the weakest members of society."

The pope said economic models that seek maximum profit and consumption and encourage competition at all costs had failed to look after the basic needs of many and could sow social unrest.

"It is alarming to see hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing instances of inequality between rich and poor, by the prevalence of a selfish and individualistic mindset which also finds expression in an unregulated financial capitalism."

The pope said people, groups and institutions were needed to foster human creativity, to draw lessons from the crisis and to create a new economic model.

Qualcomm Corporation headquartered in San Diego has been lobbying Congress for a "tax holiday" that would allow it to "repatriate" millions of dollars held offshore in tax free jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees the New York State Common Retirement Fund, has sued Qualcomm over disclosure of use of stockholder funds for political purposes. Although the general public doesn't have a right to know because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, stockholders do have a right to know because theoretically it is their money being used. Despite the New York Comptroller's having to resort to a lawsuit to find out, we already know that one of Qualcomm's most intense lobbying efforts relates to getting the government to declare a tax holiday which would allow it to bring profits back home to the US at a reduced or zero tax rate, a process euphemistically called repatriation. With reference to OpenSecrets.org, it is easy to find out what Qualcomm's lobbying interests are. That website lists the following:

1) Tax policy regarding rate at which foreign assets can be brought back into the United States, including H.R. 1036 - Job Creation and Innovation Investment Act and related legislation.

2) Need for corporate tax reform and repatriation.

3) H.R. 1834 - Need for corporate tax reform and repatriation.

4) Tax policy regarding rate at which foreign assets can be brought back into the United States, including H.R. 1036 - Job Creation and Innovation Investment Act, S.Res. 25 - A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that comprehensive tax reform legislation should include incentives for companies to repatriate foreign earnings for the purpose of creating new jobs; The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (repatriation) and related legislation. H.R. 3765 (Public Law 112-78) - Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, and related legislation (repatriation).

According to OpenSecrets.org, Qualcomm spent $4,740,000 in 2012 and $6,620,000 in 2011 on lobbying. Qualcomm's lobbying efforts have increased from a relatively modest $415,000 in 2000 to the neighborhood of $6 million a year (with the exception of 2012) starting in 2007. Not long after the government did enact a tax holiday in 2004, Qualcomm upped its lobbying efforts for another one so it could bring even more foreign profits stashed in offshore tax havens back home. The tax holiday of 2004 was called the American Jobs Creation Act. It created very few jobs and in retrospect turned out to be a total scam. Various companies did bring $362 billion back into the US under the pretense that this money would be used to create jobs. But the majority of it did not go to building factories nor did it go to research. What it did go to was the enrichment of investors through stock buybacks and dividend payments. It was actually responsible for destroying jobs.

Here's how the scam works. Corporations like Qualcomm set up subsidiaries in offshore jurisdictions with zero tax rates like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Then they transfer assets to those corporations. In Qualcomm's case those assets are mainly "intellectual property" like patents. These are the kinds of assets that are very easy to transfer. They typically sell these assets to their subsidiary for a very low price. They can legitimately do this if profits have not started to really kick in like in the case of a new patent that hasn't become a goldmine yet. As profits from that patent start to come in, the parent US based corporation has to pay huge royalties to the offshore subsidiary for the use of its patents. Profits pile up offshore where they aren't taxed while losses pile up onshore where they qualify for a tax deduction. Hence the need for a tax holiday to get those offshore profits back into the US without paying the 35% corporate income tax rate. David Cay Johnston writes in "The Fine Print":

"Buried in the fine print of the Jobs Creation Act is a hard truth: companies were not obliged to spend one dollar on new hiring or expanding research. If that sounds to you like an action with all the significance of moving a dollar from your left pocket to your right, your assumption is correct. The way lobbyists wrote the bill, companies could use their tax savings for virtually anything company executives said contributed to a firm's ability to retain workers and create jobs. In other words, creating jobs was not a requirement of the American Jobs Creation Act, while destroying jobs was an authorized purpose." As Johnston states: "Perhaps the law should have been called the 2004 Destroy American Jobs Act."

And destroy jobs they did. Hewlett-Packard brought $14.5 billion of untaxed overseas profits back to the US and immediately fired 14,000 employees. Other companies did the same. Altogether about 100,000 jobs were destroyed although the companies waited for the American Jobs Creation Act to be signed before sending out the pink slips. Also while the bill talked about creating jobs, it said nothing about creating them in the United States. Therefore, creating non-American jobs was an authorized use of tax savings under the American Jobs Creation Act. By manipulating the stock market with stock buybacks, corporate executives at Qualcomm and other corporations kept their stock price high. Since the value of executive stock options depends on the stock price, their main goal was to get that stock price up there so they could cash in their options at the highest possible rates.

"In any case, the 'we would invest in the US if only we had the money' argument doesn't hold water. Given how low interest rates are right now, it's just as easy to borrow to fund capital spending as it would be to pay a [proposed] 5% tax. As Warren Buffett has said frequently in the past few months, a lack of cash is not hindering job creation. In fact, banks are in need of major corporations to lend to.

...

"But we should not allow companies to bring money in from abroad tax free - or we'll be setting the stage for yet another stimulus measure that benefits those who need it the least."

As of 2012 Qualcomm has about $16.5 billion stashed in overseas bank accounts. The company’s profits jumped from $1.6 billion in 2009 to $4.3 billion in 2011, an increase of nearly 300 percent. During that same period, they increased the number of properties owned or leased outside the United States from 70 to 99, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Meanwhile, Qualcomm pared down its U.S. property holdings from 76 to 73. Qualcomm is one of the nation's premier outsourcers and pioneered the practice of shipping work overseas.

"This just goes to show how screwed up the tax laws are in general. The way to encourage corporations to invest in factories here instead of overseas is not to give them tax breaks to repatriate profits. The way to do it is to not let them sell into the US market from abroad without paying the piper at the border. Last year more than 50% of the profits of US corporations were made from their investments abroad. The US market is becoming one of diminishing returns. The main reason Qualcomm wants to repatriate the money is not to build factories here but to line the pockets of CEO Paul Jacobs and other US based investors. You can’t blame them for that. These corporations are out to make a buck, and one of the main ways they do that is to not pay taxes. And this has resulted in huge deficits for the US government."

But I guess since Qualcomm didn't get its way, it announced in 2011 that it planned to invest $1 billion to build a massive manufacturing facility in Taiwan. So much for job creation in the US.

January 03, 2013

“It’s not all I would have liked,” says Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, speaking of the deal on the fiscal cliff, “so on to the debt ceiling.”

The battle over the fiscal cliff was only a prelude to the coming battle over raising the debt ceiling – a battle that will likely continue through early March, when the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default on the nation’s debt.

The White House’s and Democrats’ single biggest failure in the cliff negotiations was not getting Republicans’ agreement to raise the debt ceiling.

The last time the debt ceiling had to be raised, in 2011, Republicans demanded major cuts in programs for the poor as well as Medicare and Social Security.

They got some concessions from the White House but didn’t get what they wanted – which led us to the fiscal cliff.

So we’ve come full circle.

On it goes, battle after battle in what seems an unending war that began with the election of Tea-Party Republicans in November, 2010.

Don’t be fooled. This war was never over the federal budget deficit.

In fact, federal deficits are dropping as a percent of the total economy.

For the fiscal year ending in September 2009, the deficit was 10.1 percent of the gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in America. In 2010, it was 9 percent. In 2011, 8.7 percent. In the 2012 fiscal year, it was down to 7 percent.

The deficit ballooned in 2009 because of the Great Recession. It knocked so many people out of work that tax revenues dropped to the lowest share of the economy in over sixty years. (The Bush tax cuts on the rich also reduced revenues.) The recession also boosted government spending on a stimulus program and on safety nets like unemployment insurance and food stamps.

But as the nation slowly emerges from recession, more people are employed — generating more tax revenues, and requiring less spending on safety nets and stimulus. That’s why the deficit is shrinking.

Yes, deficits are projected to rise again in coming years as a percent of GDP. But that’s mainly due to the rising costs of health care, along with aging baby boomers who are expected to need more medical treatment.

Health care already consumes 18 percent of the total economy and almost a quarter of the federal budget (mostly in Medicare and Medicaid).

So if the ongoing war between Republicans and Democrats was really over those future budget deficits, you might expect Republicans and Democrats to be focusing on ways to hold down future healthcare costs.

They might be debating how to make the cost controls in the Affordable Care Act more effective, for example, or the merits of moving to a more efficient single-payer system, as every other advanced country has done.

But they’re not debating this, because the federal deficit is not what this war is about.

It’s about the size of government. Tea-Party Republicans (and other congressional Republicans worried about a Tea-Party challenge in their next primary) want the government to be much smaller.

“My goal,” says conservative guru Grover Norquist, “is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

What’s behind this zeal to shrink government? It’s not that the U.S. government has suddenly become larger. In fact, non-military government spending relative to the size of the U.S. economy remains the smallest of any other rich nation.

Apart from the military, Medicare and Social Security account for almost everything else the federal government does – and these programs continue to be hugely popular, as Republicans learn every time they threaten them.

The animus toward government has more to do with the growing frustrations of many Americans that they’re not getting ahead no matter how hard they work.

Government is an easy scapegoat, utilized by much of corporate America to convince average Americans to cut taxes, spending, and regulations — and divert attention from record-high corporate profits and concentration of income and wealth at the top.

The median wage continues to drop, adjusted for inflation, even though the economy is growing. And the share of the economy going to wages rather than to profits is the smallest on record.

Increasingly it’s looked like the game is rigged, especially when people see government bailing out Wall Street (the Tea Party movement grew out of the bailout, as did the Occupiers), and handing out corporate welfare to big agriculture, big pharma, oil companies, and the insurance industry, to name but a few of the recipients.

The outrage grows when average working people are told – falsely — that a growing portion of Americans don’t pay taxes and live off government handouts.

The battle over the fiscal cliff is over, but the trench warfare will continue.